EPC

On 26 October 2024 at 062148 I sent an unequivocal permanent exclusion request because of problematic gambling and gambling addiction

The request expressly stated that all of my accounts should be closed permanently without any possibility of reopening and that the exclusion should apply to every relevant brand subsite company and licence structure I did adress this request directly to luckypaysio and 16 other brands

CoinKingsassociated with luckypays confirmed the closure of my account at 062431 only two minutes and forty-three seconds after the exclusion request had been sent

The response stated

As per your request we have closed your account with us

The speed of this response establishes that the gambling-addiction notification had been received read and actively processed almost immediately

CoinKings response sent through LuckyPays infrastructure

The CoinKings closure confirmation was sent through authenticated LuckyPays email infrastructure

The message

was sent from supportluckypaysio
used the LuckyPays domain in its technical email routing
contained the subject CoinKings Account Closed
was signed by CoinKings Support
formed part of a support thread handled through the same infrastructure later used for my LuckyPays complaint

This establishes a direct operational connection between the receipt of the exclusion request the CoinKings support response and the LuckyPays support environment

I do not rely on this fact alone to allege that LuckyPays and CoinKings must necessarily be the same legal entity However it clearly demonstrates that the exclusion request was known and processed within support infrastructure directly connected with LuckyPays


LuckyPays remained open despite immediate knowledge of the exclusion

Although the request had been processed for CoinKings within less than three minutes my LuckyPays account remained accessible

Deposits and gambling remained possible after the permanent gambling-addiction notification

On 1 November 2024 I replied to the CoinKings closure thread and expressly stated

Hello my LuckyPays account wasnt closed why was I able to deposit

Instead of addressing why the exclusion had not been applied to LuckyPays the support team later responded

Kindly note that we are supporting only CoinKings Casino

This response is inconsistent with the documented support and email infrastructure

The team claimed that it was only responsible for CoinKings even though

1 the CoinKings closure confirmation was sent from supportluckypaysio

2 the original permanent exclusion request had been received through that LuckyPays address

3 the request had been processed within less than three minutes

4 I raised the continued availability of LuckyPays directly within the same support thread

5 a separate LuckyPays account-closure confirmation was subsequently sent from the same email address and support environment

The statement that the team only supported CoinKings therefore does not explain why CoinKings support was operating through LuckyPays infrastructure or why the LuckyPays account remained open after the exclusion had already been received and processed

LuckyPays closed only after the renewed complaint

My LuckyPays account was not closed until 1 November 2024 after I had repeatedly complained that the exclusion had not been implemented and that deposits had remained possible

LuckyPays then confirmed

As per your request we have closed your account with us

This was approximately six days after the original permanent gambling-addiction notification

LuckyPays subsequently rejected a refund on the basis that the deposited funds had already been gambled

That response does not address the actual responsible-gambling failure The relevant issue is not merely what happened to the deposited funds after they were accepted The issue is that the deposits should not have been accepted at all after a clear permanent gambling-addiction exclusion had already been received and processed through the connected support infrastructure

Payment evidence and amount to be determined

My Revolut data contains completed card payments using the merchant descriptor BitSent after the exclusion request

Payments of EUR 210 and EUR 279 were made on 31 October 2024 shortly before I complained that deposits had remained possible at LuckyPays

The available evidence strongly supports that these payments relate to the relevant casino activity However the external banking descriptor alone does not permit a final allocation of every transaction between LuckyPays and any other connected account

I therefore do not present a fixed final refund amount at this stage

The exact amount must be determined from records controlled by LuckyPays CoinKings the relevant operator and their payment providers including



The refund claim should cover the complete verified net loss accepted by LuckyPays after the permanent exclusion request

Wider group concerns

The present complaint is focused on LuckyPays and the documented CoinKings support connection

There is also evidence of further failures concerning other brands that received or should have been affected by the same permanent gambling-addiction notification Deposits or continued account access appear to have remained possible elsewhere after the request

Those matters may be submitted as separate complaints once the relevant transactions and responsible entities have been fully allocated

Their existence is nevertheless relevant here because it indicates that the failure at LuckyPays may not have been an isolated account-level mistake It may reflect a broader failure to distribute and enforce responsible-gambling information across connected brands support systems or operator structures

I remain interested in a coordinated group-wide solution However the present LuckyPays complaint should first address the directly documented facts

the exclusion request was received
CoinKings processed it within less than three minutes
the response was sent through LuckyPays infrastructure
LuckyPays remained open
deposits remained possible
the support team then claimed that it was only responsible for CoinKings
LuckyPays was closed only after a renewed complaint approximately six days later

Any wider settlement would need to identify all affected accounts and transactions and must not require a waiver of unknown claims before the relevant account and payment records have been disclosed

Requested resolution

I request that LuckyPays and the responsible operator

1 acknowledge receipt of the permanent gambling-addiction exclusion request on 26 October 2024

2 acknowledge that CoinKings processed the request within two minutes and forty-three seconds

3 explain why a CoinKings support response was sent through authenticated LuckyPays infrastructure

4 explain why the support team later claimed that it only supported CoinKings

5 explain why the LuckyPays account remained open after the exclusion request had already been received and processed

6 disclose the complete LuckyPays account deposit withdrawal wagering and bonus history


9 disclose how the LuckyPays and CoinKings accounts were linked or separated within the support CRM payment and responsible-gambling systems

10 calculate and refund the complete verified LuckyPays net loss accepted after the exclusion request

11 preserve all account payment support device IP KYC responsible-gambling and internal audit records

12 state whether a coordinated review of further related group violations is possible

The precise refund amount must remain open until the operator discloses the records necessary to calculate it The absence of a final figure does not undermine the complaint because the decisive account and payment information is under the operators control

I can provide Betpack with the original unredacted email files for confidential verification but I do not wish to upload or publish them publicly due to the personal data they contain

The sum entered is only a placeholder

Thanks for your help